Joe Biden
- kurtster - May 14, 2024 - 8:37pm
Science is bullsh*t
- buddy - May 14, 2024 - 8:11pm
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 6:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- fractalv - May 14, 2024 - 5:02pm
Israel
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 4:57pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- cptbuz - May 14, 2024 - 3:31pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 3:20pm
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - May 14, 2024 - 2:45pm
Play the Blues
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 2:25pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
What can you hear right now?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:25pm
The Obituary Page
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 12:41pm
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - May 14, 2024 - 12:21pm
Wordle - daily game
- maryte - May 14, 2024 - 12:15pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 14, 2024 - 10:24am
Radio Paradise Comments
- oldviolin - May 14, 2024 - 10:21am
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 5:41am
Song of the Day
- Steely_D - May 14, 2024 - 1:23am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 3:36pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 12:28pm
China
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 12:11pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
What Did You See Today?
- kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Lazy8 - May 12, 2024 - 10:26pm
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- miamizsun - May 11, 2024 - 10:37am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- oldviolin - May 11, 2024 - 8:43am
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Climate Change
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 10:08am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:35am
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Artificial Intelligence
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 6:51am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- islander - May 9, 2024 - 7:21am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
SLOVENIA
- novitibo - May 8, 2024 - 1:38am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- haresfur - May 7, 2024 - 10:46pm
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 10:18pm
Farts!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 7, 2024 - 9:53pm
The RP YouTube (Google) Group
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:46pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:35pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 7:55pm
Russia
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 1:59am
Politically Uncorrect News
- oldviolin - May 6, 2024 - 2:15pm
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 6, 2024 - 1:04pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court Rulings
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Next |
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 5:30pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: I don't give a rat's ass, and neither should the court.
The Supremes are supposed to rule on the law and hang the consequences. In fact, they have to—if they decide a case on the basis of who it works out best for in the here-and-now we lose the rule of law; whichever side can present the most sympathetic client or constituency gets to twist the whole of the law, not just their case.
Imagine a point of contract law comes up for review. On one side is a paraplegic war veteran tenant, on the other side a white supremacist fat cat absentee landlord. Boo hiss, we hate white supremacist absentee landlords and we like the underdog! And nobody wants to get evicted and this ruling might make that harder.
So they rule for the sympathetic side and the popular sentiment. But now contract law has a hink in it—for every case. Even when the paraplegic war veteran is the landlord and the fatcat white supremacist is the tenant. Or the business that owes the veteran money. See how this works?
What faction is advantaged or disadvantaged in the current politics should have absolutely nothing to do with how the supremes rule. That's the whole point of having a constitutional system of laws—the law is the same for everybody, no matter who they are.
I understand and agree with your point of ruling on the law, my question was do you believe that in reality the ruling makes things easier for those with the gold to rule. I guess you answered that with your first sentence.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 5:26pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote:In today's reality, would you agree that this decision tilts the board too far in the direction of the few who have most of the money?
I don't give a rat's ass, and neither should the court. The Supremes are supposed to rule on the law and hang the consequences. In fact, they have to—if they decide a case on the basis of who it works out best for in the here-and-now we lose the rule of law; whichever side can present the most sympathetic client or constituency gets to twist the whole of the law, not just their case. Imagine a point of contract law comes up for review. On one side is a paraplegic war veteran tenant, on the other side a white supremacist fat cat absentee landlord. Boo hiss, we hate white supremacist absentee landlords and we like the underdog! And nobody wants to get evicted and this ruling might make that harder. So they rule for the sympathetic side and the popular sentiment. But now contract law has a hink in it—for every case. Even when the paraplegic war veteran is the landlord and the fatcat white supremacist is the tenant. Or the business that owes the veteran money. See how this works? What faction is advantaged or disadvantaged in the current politics should have absolutely nothing to do with how the supremes rule. That's the whole point of having a constitutional system of laws—the law is the same for everybody, no matter who they are.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 4:57pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: No, they didn't. They ruled that getting a message to the public costs money, and that restricting the spending of that money restricted the message.
But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
In today's reality, would you agree that this decision tilts the board too far in the direction of the few who have most of the money?
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 4:51pm |
|
romeotuma wrote:Yeah, everything you say is true, but it's more complex than just an issue of "free speech"... ultimately, I have to go with the ACLU... but I don't have to love it... I am just glad we have Colbert to mock it... he be a true patriot...
So...Colbert can mock the decision (even tho it was the correct decision) and lead a movement to overturn that correct decision, mislead people about what the decision was about and what it means and that's cool 'cuz he hates all the right people. The issue is more complex than free speech, but free speech trumps those complexities. Colbert, for instance, has the right to play demagog. You have the right to cut & paste your opinions. But you don't have the power to do so unchallenged. That's why we need free speech for everybody.
|
|
(former member)
Location: hotel in Las Vegas Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:32am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Stephen Colbert may lead an army of pitchfork-and-torch-weilding comedy fans, but that won't change the law. If congress wants to overturn the Citizens United case it will have to amend the constitution and carve out an exception to the first amendment protection of free speech to accomplish it. Probably by repealing the first amendment and replacing it with something much more convoluted and arbitrary, like the 18th amendment.
This is the left's equivalent to the flag burning panic of the last century. Face it folks, when there's free speech some of it will be supporting things you don't like, coming from people you don't like. Yeah, everything you say is true, but it's more complex than just an issue of "free speech"... ultimately, I have to go with the ACLU... but I don't have to love it... I am just glad we have Colbert to mock it... he be a true patriot...
other things have occurred that I am infinitely more concerned about than Citizens United over issues of civil liberty—
Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervousby Sal Gentile PBS December 7, 2011Is our Constitution under siege?... Here are five issues that are especially worrisome to civil liberties watchdogs...
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:22am |
|
hippiechick wrote:They ruled that money = speech, right?
No, they didn't. They ruled that getting a message to the public costs money, and that restricting the spending of that money restricted the message. But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:20am |
|
romeotuma wrote:Yes, that's true, and it is a good point... but the primary thesis of Dahlia Lithwick's article is that Colbert is educating the public about the absurdity of Citizens United, while the Supremes are hampered by a lack of public relations—
But in the history of the Supreme Court, nothing has ever prepared the justices for the public opinion wrecking ball that is Stephen Colbert. The comedian/presidential candidate/super PAC founder has probably done more to undermine public confidence in the court's 2010 Citizens United opinion than anyone, including the dissenters. In this contest, the high court is supremely outmatched.
Stephen Colbert may lead an army of pitchfork-and-torch-weilding comedy fans, but that won't change the law. If congress wants to overturn the Citizens United case it will have to amend the constitution and carve out an exception to the first amendment protection of free speech to accomplish it. Probably by repealing the first amendment and replacing it with something much more convoluted and arbitrary, like the 18th amendment. This is the left's equivalent to the flag burning panic of the last century. Face it folks, when there's free speech some of it will be supporting things you don't like, coming from people you don't like.
|
|
samiyam
Location: Moving North
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:16am |
|
hippiechick wrote: They ruled that money = speech, right?
Isn't that always the case? (God Help Us!!)
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:12am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: hippiechick wrote:Corporations are people too, my friend
No they aren't, and the supremes never said they were. Go read the decision. Those words, that thought, that argument are nowhere in it. That is the strawman that burns so brightly here. Mitt Romney does not have the wit to defend the decision when the question comes up, but this isn't about Mitt Romney. It's about the first amendment, which is why the ACLU filed an amicus breif in favor of the plaintiffs. They ruled that money = speech, right?
|
|
(former member)
Location: hotel in Las Vegas Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:11am |
|
Lazy8 wrote:
But there’s a problem with Lithwick’s narrative: Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United Yes, that's true, and it is a good point... but the primary thesis of Dahlia Lithwick's article is that Colbert is educating the public about the absurdity of Citizens United, while the Supremes are hampered by a lack of public relations—
But in the history of the Supreme Court, nothing has ever prepared the justices for the public opinion wrecking ball that is Stephen Colbert. The comedian/presidential candidate/super PAC founder has probably done more to undermine public confidence in the court's 2010 Citizens United opinion than anyone, including the dissenters. In this contest, the high court is supremely outmatched.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:10am |
|
hippiechick wrote:Corporations are people too, my friend
No they aren't, and the supremes never said they were. Go read the decision. Those words, that thought, that argument are nowhere in it. That is the strawman that burns so brightly here. Mitt Romney does not have the wit to defend the decision when the question comes up, but this isn't about Mitt Romney. It's about the first amendment, which is why the ACLU filed an amicus breif in favor of the plaintiffs.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:03am |
|
Lazy8 wrote:hippiechick wrote:Colbert is making a strong argument...against a strawman. Most of the people outraged about the Citizens United case haven't read it, and understand only the spin that the left end of the media have put on it. Here's a response from someone who actually has read the decision and does understand it: Slate’s U.S. Supreme Court commentator Dahlia Lithwick has written a paean to Stephen Colbert and his satirical Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. As Lithwick sees it, the members of the Citizens United majority are getting their just deserts, as Colbert uses his Super PAC to attack a decision that contributed to the creation of Super PACs. But there’s a problem with Lithwick’s narrative: Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United Corporations are people too, my friend
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 9:59am |
|
hippiechick wrote:Colbert is making a strong argument...against a strawman. Most of the people outraged about the Citizens United case haven't read it, and understand only the spin that the left end of the media have put on it. Here's a response from someone who actually has read the decision and does understand it: Slate’s U.S. Supreme Court commentator Dahlia Lithwick has written a paean to Stephen Colbert and his satirical Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. As Lithwick sees it, the members of the Citizens United majority are getting their just deserts, as Colbert uses his Super PAC to attack a decision that contributed to the creation of Super PACs. But there’s a problem with Lithwick’s narrative: Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United
|
|
ScottN
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 8:24am |
|
hippiechick wrote:Very Nice
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 4, 2012 - 7:59am |
|
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 6, 2012 - 8:54am |
|
cc_rider wrote:Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.
I'd be willing to bet that there are at least a handful of people residing in the US who are utterly undocumented and roughing it "off the grid" unbeknownst to any authority. Although modern infrared imaging makes it a lot easier to locate such folks if they live in areas where you need a fire in the winter to keep warm.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 6:26pm |
|
cc_rider wrote:Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.
or, out of boredom they could entrap you like they did randy weaver.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 2:36pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote:what's the diff if they pick & choose or disregard all laws? gubment gonna come get your ass either way.
Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 2:06pm |
|
cc_rider wrote: Exactly. If they just wanted to live in the hinterlands, unfettered by the trappings of civilization, I wouldn't care a whit. Declare yourself sovereign, heck crown yourself king for all I care. But it's all-or-nothing: you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.
what's the diff if they pick & choose or disregard all laws? gubment gonna come get your ass either way.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 2:03pm |
|
steeler wrote:Ah, the freemen! Asserted the right to declare themselves sovereign — and to engage in check-kiting! Sorry, couldn't resist. I always think that each time I hear them mentioned . . .been a while. Exactly. If they just wanted to live in the hinterlands, unfettered by the trappings of civilization, I wouldn't care a whit. Declare yourself sovereign, heck crown yourself king for all I care. But it's all-or-nothing: you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.
|
|
|